On Fri, Mar 27, 2015 at 6:12 PM, Gianfranco Costamagna wrote:
I completely agree, but what is the tradeoff between forcing upstream to
release
something that might be broken or untested and having two debian patches?
Of course one can't force upstream to make a release and of course
upstream
Hi Paul,
Either way is fine, but I generally subscribe to the release early,release
often principle. Releasing also benefits the rest of the Free
Software community, as Debian has promised to do. Of course it is
completely up to upstream as to when they do releases.
I completely agree, but
On Thu, 2015-03-26 at 08:00 +, Gianfranco Costamagna wrote:
Hi Paul, upstream fixed all the issues, so the next version will drop
all our patches.
Excellent.
I hope we can avoid pushing upstream to release, right?
Either way is fine, but I generally subscribe to the release early,
Agreed, getting upstream to fix them and start using these tools is
the best option.
Hi Paul, upstream fixed all the issues, so the next version will drop all our
patches.
I hope we can avoid pushing upstream to release, right?
let me know,
cheers,
Gianfranco
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to
Hi Harlan!
(ccing Mikhail so he can ack/nack the GPL-2 to GPL-2+ change)
The most concerning issue to me is the change in d/copyright from GPL-2
to GPL-2+ for the files under debian/. Matching them to upstream is
best practice, to be sure, but to do so needs the permission of the
authors of
Ack.
On Wed, 18 Mar 2015, at 11:29, Gianfranco Costamagna wrote:
Hi Harlan!
(ccing Mikhail so he can ack/nack the GPL-2 to GPL-2+ change)
The most concerning issue to me is the change in d/copyright from GPL-2
to GPL-2+ for the files under debian/. Matching them to upstream is
Hi Paul,
All good points Harlan. I also won't be sponsoring this.
thanks to you too!
(now we have the ack)
That tool doesn't appear to be run at build time to generate themanual page,
which means that if downstream folks patch the command
they won't get an updated manual page. I'd strongly
On Wed, Mar 18, 2015 at 7:34 PM, Gianfranco Costamagna wrote:
I opened upstream issue 505
https://github.com/s3tools/s3cmd/issues/505
Could you also suggest removing the manual page from git and tarballs
so it is always built from source?
I see them here
Hi Paul
I opened upstream issue 505
https://github.com/s3tools/s3cmd/issues/505
Could you also suggest removing the manual page from git and tarballs
so it is always built from source?
I just noticed Matt here is also upstream, bad me I didn't check :)
Personally I'd suggest upstream
On Wed, Mar 18, 2015 at 6:34 AM, Harlan Lieberman-Berg wrote:
Thank you for your work on the s3cmd package. I'm not able to sponsor
your package at this time, but I've done a review for you to help fix up
a couple of nitpicks while you wait.
All good points Harlan. I also won't be sponsoring
Harlan, thanks for the review.
I'm happy to have any of my trivial contributions under debian/ be GPL-2+.
I removed a patch from debian/patches that fixed up manpage typos. The
manpage is automatically generated. I'll look into updating the generator
to escape the errors for a future release.
Hello Gianfranco!
Thank you for your work on the s3cmd package. I'm not able to sponsor
your package at this time, but I've done a review for you to help fix up
a couple of nitpicks while you wait.
The most concerning issue to me is the change in d/copyright from GPL-2
to GPL-2+ for the files
Package: sponsorship-requests
Severity: normal
Dear mentors,
I am looking for a sponsor for my package s3cmd
* Package name: s3cmd
Version : 1.5.2-1
Upstream Author : 2007-2015 TGRMN Software - http://www.tgrmn.com - and
contributors
* URL :
13 matches
Mail list logo
